I want to know what is the meaning of the ADSB and it’s parameters ??
I want to know what is the meaning of the ADSB and it’s parameters ??
ADS-B is an acronym.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)
It is a Next-Generation aircraft collision avoidance system. It will be a required capability of almost all aircraft by the year 2020 (by FAA mandate)
Some people have seen this as an opportunity to get it installed early since it’s a great system to make the skies safer.
Because it works with a well-understood beacon signal that is sent out by your aircraft, the UAV/Drone industry has started to integrate electronics that use this technology to help drones avoid manned aircraft.
I recommend getting started with Receive only capability so you can see how it works. It’s much more affordable, but the responsibility is on you to avoid manned aircraft since they won’t see you. You will need Transmit (ADS-B Out) and Receive (ADS-B In) so everyone can see you AND you can see everyone.
I hope this helps!
If you want to get excited about ADS-B, check this out:
and the AR feature on this app:
At Oshkosh last month I learned that the FAA might give waivers for BLOS flight provided that the applicant can show that he can detect and avoid manned aircraft. ADS-B seems like an obvious solution. I am happy to see that some companies like UAvioniX are starting to produce really lightweight and inexpensive electronics, but please provide any thoughts you may have on the following:
This is going to be an increasingly important subject, so I would welcome an informed dialog.
Hi Gordon, I recored a reply for you and my friend Robert that was asking about this.
Thanks for starting this discussion.
Hello Adrian, Thanks for the informative response. You are clearly a knowledgeable person, so maybe we can focus the discussion a bit.
I am in the Civil Air Patrol and one of our missions is to provide post-disaster images for relief organizations such as FEMA. We use manned aircraft for this but in case of low ceilings/bad weather we cannot fly, so we are looking at fixed-wing sUAS as backup. We would like to fly BVLOS because we photograph large areas in a mission, and we do not want to keep moving our point of launch.
The FAA says that they may grant us Part 107 waivers, but only if WE can show THEM how we will see and avoid. ADS-B is an obvious technology, but the mandate only requires aircraft which have electrical systems and are flying in class A, B and C airspace to be equipped. As you described there is a high cost of installing such equipment so it is probable that many manned aircraft will not be so equipped, especially those aircraft flying in the <400ft airspace like balloons or ultralights.
We (the sUAV community) are a small bump on the FAA log, and do not have the leverage to force a change in regulations. Although I agree with you that it would be nice for all manned aircraft to be ADS-B equipped, the fact is that they will not be so we need to think about additional solutions. We can equip our vehicles with ADS-B (In) and detect all aircraft with transponders or ADS-B(Out) transmitters, but what about the other aircraft? Will the FAA grant a waiver if we cannot detect ALL aircraft which are legally flying in the same airspace?
They will probably just tell us to stay within line of sight.,
So that is the essence of the discussion. Yes, ADS-B is a great solution and getting gratifyingly less expensive, but will the FAA think it is good enough for BVLOS? Or is there any other supplemental technology on the horizon?
It is hard to anticipate what the FAA will do since their decisions are partly political and partly pragmatic. It’s very difficult to deal with a regulatory environment this, so I feel we should keep our scrutiny to the problem space that we can control and need to get permission for. After a disaster, a balloon pilot is definitely accepting a higher lever of risk when flying. For we non-balloon pilots, this is representative of the current risk they accept when flying on a good day specifically since they have limited maneuverability.
At the core of our dilemma is that in the event of a collision, public opinion will side with the hot-air balloon and blame the dumb robot aircraft, not matter how much the dumb robot did to avoid the collision…In spite of the fact that balloon flight direction is unpredictable.
From what I see so far, the existing operating principle for cases like these (manned balloon aircraft and drones) is summarized by:
“If you see me, don’t hit me”…because they don’t have positive control over their position and direction.
These videos hopefully bring light to the plight of balloons:
(How to control)
Another way to explain this operating principle is “Yield to the least maneuverable aircraft” unless you are the government, which is not required to conform to this rule. (this is similar to boating)
We should emphasize that with ADS-B, the current risk that balloons face is reduced since we all know where the balloons are now and can avoid collisions. Also, balloons need weather to navigate. ADS-B gives you weather data for free.
I’ve reached out to some of my commercial aviation friends to get more insight and I’ll share what I learn.
The hot air balloon case is is hardest to solve so I’ll start with that. A guy in an ultralight has a little more control and thus more responsibility. Balloons run into balloons already and that hasn’t changed the operating guidelines thus far.
P.S. Here is short video for others who don’t like reading my long paragraphs.
I am late in this conversation since I just joined the forum less than 5 minutes ago. No doubt i am interested in ADSB and its implications and applicability for sUAVs. I have been fortunate in my career to be involved in efforts to spearhead initiatives with civil aviation authorities and airline operators around the world, the developed and developing world. I too have been involved with FEMA on the ground. So much for the background.
I believe that we have to do our part to demonstrate and prove to the FAA that ADS-B is an elegant and necessary solution for BVLOS. We can do all the white papers we want and spend millions of taxpayer dollars in analysis and come up with the solution that actually has been a part of FAA’s new technology refresh roadmap for both ATCs and aircraft owners for years. Is ADS-B the only solution for BVLOS? Probably not since it is possible to spoof sUAV signals (just as one can spoof air carrier signals). However, we are not using sUAVs to transport people – so I suspect that onboard ADS-B is a viable option to meet most of the detection, collision avoidance and control aspects and risks of flight management.
Note: I realize that when I speak of collision avoidance, it is applicable only with and if other aircraft are broadcasting their location, which implies ADS-B enabled. TCAS, the historical system for traffic collision avoidance, has been around for decades. TCAS uses on-board surveillance to detect transponder-equipped traffic and provides: – Traffic Display and Traffic Alerts (TA) for situational awareness of close aircraft – Resolution Advisories (RA) with vertical guidance. However, while TCAS version 6.04a was mandated in the US at the end of 1994, the next revision level (7.0) was mandated in the US only for those aircraft that participated in the Reduced Vertical Separation airspace in 2005; the current version (7.1) is not mandated in the US but is mandated in the EU and ICAO (effective at the beginning of this year).
So what does all of the above have to do with sUAVs? Unless there a distributed ability with the industry to help define its operating guidelines for BVLOS with the communities and states in which they provide the service, and are accountable and responsible operators who indeed follow the rules of the road, the autonomy you seek will take some time.
And yes, even with ADS-B we will not be able to see non-ADS-B capable aircraft. I do support that all aircraft (regardless of size) are ADS-B capable. With the current capability to monitor ADS-B from satellite versus dependence on ground stations, it makes too much sense not to. Yes - there is a cost – but certainly the safety case can be a driving factor and for us in the sUAV business, a path for true non-LOS flight planning.
I am encouraged by the recent news (October 25th) where a new collaborative program between unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operators and state, local and tribal governments to expedite the integration of UAS into the nation’s skies and spur growth in an industry expected to contribute billions to the U.S. economy. The three-year UAS Integration Pilot Program “takes collaboration to a new level by enabling local, state or tribal governments to determine what kind of activities will occur in their jurisdictions during the period of the pilot program, subject to FAA safety oversight,” according to an Oct. 25 announcement about the program from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
You can read the article at https://www.nbaa.org/ops/uas/nbaa-monitoring-program-to-speed-integration-of-uas-into-national-airspace.php
Most likely, you are already aware of the article and announcement…
I hope that this information has been informative.
Welcome to to the Ardupilot forum! Thank you for sharing that really helpful information. This new program for collaboration looks very promising and I’m hoping to contribute however I can. I was hoping to conduct a demo in the San Diego California area with my ADS-B equipped drone but I haven’t ben able to find a collaborator. I’m hoping discussions like this and public events will help build confidence in the public for BVLOS solutions.